New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-24
GorERyoR HILLS INCONSISTENCY.

GOTERNOR HILLS iNCO'"4o
David B. Hill. now that he Is Goverho'
and desires 10 mako himself SOLID with inc
rum power, stoutly insists upon Uniform
liouor law for all the cities OF the state. Due
when David b. Hill was IN AssemblymAn he
placed himself on record as being opposed 10
the very principle of uniformity In mumcipal
LEGISLATION upon which he now lays such great
stress. IN the Legislature Of 1871 war was
inauguratcd upon special legislation. IL
Bradford Prince, then member from Quecns
County, introduced two resolutions, one rcla'-
ing TO special legislation in general and the
other limited to legislation for cities. his
last mentioned resolution read a. follows:
mhercas, Tho Constitution Of tho state proVI4eS
.ha+ ., hail t the duty the Legislature 10 proVhe
FOR tho organization Of cities and tho Grafton
of vfaces and whereas II IL desirable 70 eneet tnl7
provision as far possible, by general ehactmenVs'
which will secure uniformity Of municipal govern
ment, rather than by multiplicity o. aNeiee
spec,al laws: and whereas, tho Legislature OF 1870
enacted a general law for tho incorporation Of WI
larcs. but no general law for tho incorporation OK
cities has yet been enacted therefore
pe.olve5 That tho judiciary Committee he instructed
to prepare and report to tbs House, at a. carly
time az practicable draft Of general Inv Tor INC
incorporation Of cities In this State
This resolution was referred to the Judiciary
Committee. of which David b. Hill was
member. After holding II under consideration
for nearly three weeks the committee pre-
sented the following report, Which Ddrd IL.
HiH signed:
Thu committee respectfully report that they have
given said resolution careful consideration, and have
come TO the conclusion that 1t Ia not practicable for
tho committee TO draft or tho Legislature 10 pass,
60 Tho furoru of Cities.
"A the cities ia this State contain scarcely 10000
population The difference between these cities ana
the cities Of New-York and Brooklyn Is too great To
mike ID possible 20 adapt 20 all cities the same
form Of government
Tho provisions for charter for the government
of large city like the City Of New-York must neces'
sariy differ from the provisions Of charter for tho
government Of O smaller city Of 10000 or 10000
inhabitants. Tho City Of New-York comprises nearly
one-quarter of the population Of this state; It's
interests various; tho machinery Of its govern
Inent must necessarily be moro complex than that
Of smaller cities; and the simpler provslons Of tho
law under which city of smaller range Of popufa-
ton could properly DO governed could not with pro-
prsty DO applied to the City Of New-Yorh. 1t VIII
be readily perceived that all the provisions Of tho
ctDr.er passed last year. for the government Of tho
City OF New YORK, would rot Do applicable ~ the
City OF poughkeepsie Newburg other cities Of like
range OF population nor would tho laws applicable
to those cities DO appropriate for tho government Of
tho City OF New-YOrk The very statement Of the
case, il seems 70 your committee. demonstrates tho
impossbnity Of perfectng general law for the in
corporation Of cities.
II is interesting to compare Mr.. Hills views,
as thus formally expressed, with one Of the
reasons winch he gave for vetoing the Crosby
! bill:
Its (tho Crosby bIIl'sl provisions, far they
change existing excso laws only applicable ~ tho
N Lila NJ
tho state aro exempt from these provisions. Tho
| bin Is thus rendered most Objectionable . .
Tine excise law should DO substantially uniform
throughout the State.
What conclusion is tho public 10 draw from
these two antagonisic viewsi If Mr.. Hill
was right when he was an Assemblyman he Is
wrong now that no is Governor II he was
sincere then he Is playing the part Of bypo-
critic now. Perhaps the run, power-thc power
which controls the Democrats party-under-